The most significant item on the agenda was the application for a property on Sagamore Road, where the property owner sought to optimize the use of her backyard. The representative of the applicant presented revised plans that reduced the number of variances required, addressing feedback from a previous meeting. The only remaining variance was a “C1 slope variance,” which pertained to the disturbance of steep slope areas exceeding the permitted limit by 738 square feet.

Key modifications included reducing impervious coverage by removing steps and reconfiguring a patio. The fence design was also altered from a six-foot solid structure to a four-foot ornamental fence set back from the wall, eliminating the need for a fence height variance. The wall was pulled back five feet from the property line to avoid disturbing a steep slope, further reducing the number of variances needed.

The applicant’s engineer provided details on water management strategies, confirming the installation of a small detention pipe to manage runoff effectively. Photographs from Google Street View were presented to illustrate similar properties in the neighborhood with retaining walls.

Board members inquired about the extent of wall adjustments and the impact on the landscape. One member expressed satisfaction with the scaled-back plans, stating, “I don’t see a way that you can make this usable without disturbance,” acknowledging the challenges posed by the topography. Another member praised the revisions, declaring, “It’s very well done now; it’s extremely well done,” emphasizing that the adjustments were not excessive in terms of land use.

Support for the application was voiced by several board members, who agreed that the hardship due to the property’s conditions warranted the variances sought. The board recognized the importance of balancing the applicant’s needs with zoning regulations.

Another notable discussion involved a variance request for a property on Lill Drive, presented by property owners Nikita Goria and her husband Al Merchant. They highlighted their long-term investment in the community and the need for renovations to accommodate their multigenerational family. Architect Dan Lson outlined proposed changes, including a one-and-a-half-story addition and modifications to the living and dining areas.

The largest variance sought was for a rear yard setback. The original application requested a setback of 10.9 feet, representing 6% of the lot depth. After reviewing the plans, the setback was increased to 13.2 feet, reducing the variance request to 8% of the lot depth. The unique triangular shape of the lot complicated compliance with standard setback requirements.

The house, built in 1956, has significant slope variations impacting both the front and rear yards. The proposed renovations aimed to improve the living space by removing a masonry fireplace to expand the living area into a proper family room and slightly increasing the kitchen size. The addition would fill in a corner of the house to create a larger dining area without altering the footprint.

Specific variances included a front yard setback proposed at 50.3 feet, requiring a variance of one foot from the prevailing requirement of 51.3 feet. The rear yard setback variance was sought for the corner of the deck at 13.2 feet, down from the existing 15.5 feet, while the maximum allowable is still 20%. A building coverage variance was also requested, with current coverage at 10.9% and proposed at 14.14%, where the maximum is 14%.

Discussion ensued regarding the design’s impact on building coverage, which was noted to be 28 square feet beyond permissible limits. A suggestion was made to adjust the design to eliminate this variance by pulling in the rear wall of the proposed storage area.

The board members deliberated on the merits of the variances, with some expressing skepticism about the need for them given the minor adjustments proposed. One member remarked, “I think sometimes as a board we get caught up in the numbers particularly when there are like these really small numbers,” indicating that the minor deviations might not warrant significant concern.

The conversation also touched on the lot’s unique characteristics and the hardships faced by the family due to its steepness and size limitations. A member noted, “your lot does have some anomalies to it which make developing in it slightly more of a hardship,” indicating an understanding of the challenges presented by the property.

Ultimately, the board appeared inclined to support the proposal, recognizing the need for the family to enhance their living space within reasonable bounds of the zoning laws. The consensus leaned toward approval, with several members expressing support for the project.

The meeting concluded with the mention of other applications, such as those for properties on Me Brook Road, 38 Crescent Place, and Factory Drive, which were carried over to future meetings.